Is Muhammad the false prophet referenced in the bible ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

rambo919

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
4,665
Must have had some real potent brew back then, .......... beer goggles got nothing on that.
Well scaling lifetimes (whether you believe them or not) in those days the death expectancy was 1000 while today it's 100 so in todays terms she was 9 years older.
 

Jalaloedien

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
144
Actually both, there were warnings of many false prohpets and anti-christs but also a warning about a unholy trinity at the end of: a specific false prophet (beast from the earth), a specific anti-christ(dragon) and something just referred to as "the beast from the sea".

People have always believed that these would be people but..... given the way society has changed they could be AI's, institutions, or secular cults.

It's possible that something claiming falsely to be a returning Mohammad could be a false prophet but.... we won't actually know till we know.
Interestingly, in the Islamic faith we are also taught of a time when there will be a false prophet who will claim to Christ (kinda) by performing miracles (healing the sick, raising the dead, etc.). This will coincide with the second coming of Jesus because many of his followers (Christians) and people in general will follow this "anti-christ". Of course since to us Muslims, he was a prophet of the same God that chose Muhammad as a messenger, Jesus will also return to set the record straight for Christians regarding the Holy Trinity. Some will believe, others will be like "nah that can't be legit....this new Jesus is the real one and YOUR'E the false one.....you're not even Christian".
I'd kinda want to be around when this happens (IF you are inclined to believe in this) but then again, maybe I wouldn't want to be :oops:
 

rambo919

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
4,665
Interestingly, in the Islamic faith we are also taught of a time when there will be a false prophet who will claim to Christ (kinda) by performing miracles (healing the sick, raising the dead, etc.).
That would be the anti-christ, remember the "anti" part does not mean "against" but "in place of". He will perform counterfeit miracles, probably illusionary and/or technological in nature. It's also likely he will put down a minor anti-christ to complete the illusion and cement his authority.

Jesus will also return to set the record straight for Christians regarding the Holy Trinity.
That probably has it's source in few people either back then or now properly understanding the trinity because they lack the necessary cognitive understanding (one way to put it anyway). It's not three separate entities. It's three different persons of the same entity the same way people (being created in the image of their creator) are actually also triune beings made up of spirit, soul and body... obviously though we (thankfully) lack the capability to consciously split ourselves in the same way in any way other than abstractly.

Another stupid example is a government department, all the same government but each department is distinct.
 
Last edited:

Jalaloedien

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
144
As a side-note, I know to atheists this all must sound hilariously fantastical LOL, but if you can believe there is a chance we are in the matrix or that we are here as a consequence of a 10000000000000000:1 chance of atoms arranging themselves in JUST the right way, then give us creationists a break
 

Jalaloedien

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
144
That would be the anti-christ, remember the "anti" part does not mean "against" but "in place of". He will perform counterfeit miracles, probably illusionary and/or technological in nature. It's also likely he will put down a minor anti-christ to complete the illusion and cement his authority.
David Blaine!!!!!????? :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :ROFL:
 

Jalaloedien

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
144
That would be the anti-christ, remember the "anti" part does not mean "against" but "in place of". He will perform counterfeit miracles, probably illusionary and/or technological in nature. It's also likely he will put down a minor anti-christ to complete the illusion and cement his authority.


That probably has it's source in few people either back then or now properly understanding the trinity because they lack the necessary cognitive understanding (one way to put it anyway). It's not three separate entities. It's three different persons of the same entity the same way people (being created in the image of their creator) are actually also triune beings made up of spirit, soul and body... obviously though we (thankfully) lack the capability to consciously split ourselves in the same way in any way other than abstractly.

Another stupid example is a government department, all the same government but each department is distinct.
Ya, the concept of (or belief therein) of the Trinity is where the Muslims and Christians part ways. To us, Christianity started out as the same message as all other prophets but was corrupted along the way by the Church and people in power (as it's been proven to have been in other ways). To us Jesus was speaking about OUR Father and not literally HIS. To us his miracles were a gift given to him from God as a proof to those who wouldn't not believe but not to be confused with divinity....just like other prophets before him. This is the fundamental reason why depicting the prophet is such taboo to us Muslims....because it was the express instruction of the prophet to not create depictions of him because people would start to worship him as a God or extension of him and raise him to the level of a deity instead of focussing of God's message. Ironically when Muslims lose their shits over the depiction of the prophet and hurt or kill people because of that, it just proves that they lost the plot behind why it's taboo.....but that's for another debate lol.
 

rambo919

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
4,665
Ya, the concept of (or belief therein) of the Trinity is where the Muslims and Christians part ways. To us, Christianity started out as the same message as all other prophets but was corrupted along the way by the Church and people in power (as it's been proven to have been in other ways). To us Jesus was speaking about OUR Father and not literally HIS. To us his miracles were a gift given to him from God as a proof to those who wouldn't not believe but not to be confused with divinity....just like other prophets before him. This is the fundamental reason why depicting the prophet is such taboo to us Muslims....because it was the express instruction of the prophet to not create depictions of him because people would start to worship him as a God or extension of him and raise him to the level of a deity instead of focussing of God's message. Ironically when Muslims lose their shits over the depiction of the prophet and hurt or kill people because of that, it just proves that they lost the plot behind why it's taboo.....but that's for another debate lol.
So basically it's a narrative difference with no way for one side to prove it to the other.... it does not help that the concept of the trinity is so difficult for the common person who can only see things in material terms to understand, they assume it means multiple gods and that's that.

To christians it's generally also taboo to create anything that could be considered a possible idol.... of course the catholics and orthodox found ways to weasel it in feeling no shame at the obvious fraud. When the bronze serpant became a idol is Israel the prophet (I forget who) destroyed it.... I suppose the same thing happened with the protestant reformation where people went overboard (way too much in some cases but mobs are mobs no matter who makes them up) in their zeal to destroy idols and images.
 

TysonRoux

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
5,412
There is no place for rapists and racists in this society. This has been lodged with the SAHRC and Ahmed Kathrada foundation. We'll take their council on this and then address with my broadband directly.
saloojee

Have you had a response from the SAHRC and Ahmed Kathrada foundation?
 

MEIOT

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
2,144
what is a prophet according to the bible?
Fewer people should care about what the plethora of possible answers to that question is I reckon. Considering how open to interpretation it all is.
It's all hogwash anyway.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
12,264
Fewer people should care about what the plethora of possible answers to that question is I reckon. Considering how open to interpretation it all is.
It's all hogwash anyway.
if the bible doesn't give a clear definition of what a prophet is, then the question of what is a false prophet according to the bible becomes moot
 

FrankCastle

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
6,918
Ok, I've heard this underage/pedophile jab a couple of times and apart from the actual age of Ayesha seemingly ranging from 9 to 14 in these arguments, heres my question:
Firstly,hats of to you for your intelligent and concise comments.
A pedo is someone who systematically targets young children, and there's no evidence that Muhammed was one so that jab is actually stupid and childish. The scholars unanimously agree she was 9 including Ayesha herself.
1. If you conform to the belief that we are no different than the rest of the animal kindom (as evolutionists would), then the age of consent is puberty... this is when every other animal becomes sexually active.
2. If you look at the history when it comes to the age of marriage in the rest of the world (including Europe), before the 18th and 19th century, then it was common to marry at the age of as early as 9. Soooooo, "immorality" seems to have been rifle on a global scale. In fact the age of consent in part of Europe today is between 14 and 16 today in 2019.

So calling this immoral is a little bit of a stretch since by all accounts this was far from uncommon or immoral at the time regardless of the country or nationality or religion. So although I could not imagine marrying a girl under the age of 14 in the times we live in now, I doubt 99% of the world would have thought it "immoral" to do so over 1400+ years ago. Then again, people did ALOT of things differently that long ago. Islam says if you have hit the age of puberty and as a man you are by the means to provide for your wife and family and as a woman you have chosen (and yes, a woman is entitled to choose) a husband with good character, then you can and should marry. That's it. Call it archaic.....it is what it is.
Id agree with you 100% if Muhammad was just your average Arab in 7th century Arabia, but according to muslims he embodies the perfect creation and an example for all mankind to follow, therefore that mantle no longer applies in the 21st century, if that was what he did 1400 y ago. Moreover we know Muhammad had prophesies and visions of future events, one of which should've been congress with a minor in our age is considered among the worst crimes a man can commit. The other religions use this specific argument to dismiss him as false prophet. Not the the most efficient way to spread Islam and get converts.
You say religion is primed for conflict, I say we as humans are. People have and continue to use religion, nationality, class, wealth, political views....pretty much anything we can as a basis of conflict.
But has religion not been created to deal with this very conflict. Thou shall not kill and whoever kills a man its as if hes killed all of mankind and if he saves a man he saved all of mankind etc?
The later of this is taken from the koran from a quote by a jewish scholar, the problem here is that this verse addresses the children of Israel only and the next verse address the muslims to kill those who are mischievous.
So in essence the texts themselves could be fueling the inherent conflict you speak of.
 

FrankCastle

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
6,918
What european at the time didn't? And with good reason, even the descendants of the viking hordes were miffed and that's saying something considering that they did a lot of what the muslims did only unorganized.

I wonder just how hard the unsuspecting muslims (who at that point were king of the hill) pooped themselves when the normans decided to join the fight. And then later when the mongols I think it was invaded.

I find it hillarious how the rest of europe were basically forced to treat the normans like a dangerous attack dog.... "as long as they are on our side.... wait why are they taking our stuff?"
If the muslims weren't defeated at The Battle of Tours its very likely Europe would've been totally Islamic today.
 

FrankCastle

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
6,918
if the bible doesn't give a clear definition of what a prophet is, then the question of what is a false prophet according to the bible becomes moot
What if said prophet is mentioned by his first name, but doesn't specify that he is false?

 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
12,264
As far as I'm concerned they're all man made creations, so no clear definition.
then my previous point stands, if you have no clear definition of a prophet in a bible, then you can't really have a clear definition of a false prophet
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top